9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 26 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - rejection on the ground that the application for refund was time barred as it was filed after one year which was the time limit specified in the N/N. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 as amended by N/N. 93/2008 dated 01.08.2008 - HELD THAT - Revenue s submission is that the case of SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT pertained to situations where goods were imported prior to issue of Notification No. 93/2008-CUS but were sold thereafter. According to the Revenue, in that particular context, Delhi High Court has held that the limitation of time for filing refund claim imposed by the Notification No 93/2008-CUS does not apply. Although the question framed by the Delhi High Court in Sony India was in the context of imports made prior to the issue of Notification, No. 93/2008-CUS and sold after the issue of this Notification, the operative part of the judgment categorically holds that the amending Notification No. 93/2008-Cus must be read down to the extent that it is imposes a limitation period. Therefore, the limitation in the Notification does not apply. The Commissioner (Appeals) has committed no error in relying on Sony India and allowing refund - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Appeal against order-in-original allowing refund claim. 2. Interpretation of limitation period for filing refund claim under Notification No. 93/2008-CUS. 3. Applicability of judicial precedents in determining limitation period for refund claims. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) New Customs House, New Delhi, which allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, thereby granting the refund claim of the respondent. 2. The case revolved around a refund claim filed by the respondent seeking refund of special additional duty paid under Notification No. 102/2007-CBIC. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim as time-barred, citing the limitation specified in Notification No. 102/2007-Cus as amended by Notification No. 93/2008. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, relying on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, which struck down the limitation prescribed by the amending notification. 3. The Revenue contended that the case of Sony India was distinguishable as it pertained to imports made prior to the issue of Notification No. 93/2008-CUS but sold thereafter. The Revenue argued that the limitation under Notification No. 93/2008-CUS should apply to imports made after its issuance. However, the Tribunal held that the operative part of the judgment in Sony India categorically states that the amending notification must be read down to the extent that it imposes a limitation period, thereby rendering the limitation inapplicable. 4. The Tribunal emphasized that as the appellant, respondent, Commissioner (Appeals), and the Tribunal itself were located within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, the precedent set by Sony India was applicable in the present case. Despite a contrary view taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of CMS Info Systems Limited vs. Union of India, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing the refund claim based on the Delhi High Court's judgment in Sony India. 5. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to grant the refund claim to the respondent based on the interpretation of the limitation period for filing refund claims under Notification No. 93/2008-CUS as per the Delhi High Court's ruling in Sony India.
|
